4.7 Article

Social learning strategies and predation risk: minnows copy only when using private information would be costly

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2008.0817

关键词

social learning; cultural transmission; predation risk; fish; social learning strategy; social foraging

资金

  1. NERC [NE/D010365/1, BB/C005430/1]
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/C005430/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/D010365/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. NERC [NE/D010365/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Animals can acquire information from the environment privately, by sampling it directly, or socially, through learning from others. Generally, private information is more accurate, but expensive to acquire, while social information is cheaper but less reliable. Accordingly, the 'costly information hypothesis' predicts that individuals will use private information when the costs associated with doing so are low, but that they should increasingly use social information as the costs of using private information rise. While consistent with considerable data, this theory has yet to be directly tested in a satisfactory manner. We tested this hypothesis by giving minnows (Phoxinus phoxinus) a choice between socially demonstrated and non-demonstrated prey patches under conditions of low, indirect and high simulated predation risk. Subjects had no experience (experiment 1) or prior private information that conflicted with the social information provided by the demonstrators (experiment 2). In both experiments, subjects spent more time in the demonstrated patch than in the non-demonstrated patch, and in experiment 1 made fewer switches between patches, when risk was high compared with when it was low. These findings are consistent with the predictions of the costly information hypothesis, and imply that minnows adopt a 'copy-when-asocial-learning-is-costly' learning strategy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据